Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Chuck Crayne <ccrayne@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:42:10 -0700
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:25:27 -0400
"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Four guys who develop NASM reading a.l.a. and I have to file a bug
report?
Only because it would appear that you have not yet convinced any of us
that you have a valid case, and the bug report gives you access to a
larger audience.
As I understand your case, you have stipulated that the Intel manuals
use the Ew notation for the operand type, which means that the mode bit
is ignored, and the operand is always 16-bits. However, you then seem
to argue that Intel was correct only in respect to memory operands,
and should have had a separate entry for register operands,
with an Ec notation, along with a footnote that the mode bit is also
ignored in this instance.
You have also stated that "only 8-bit or 32-bit registers should
be displayed for 32-bit mode, and 8-bit or 32-bit registers for 16-bit
mode.", which (ignoring the obvious typo) seems to imply that one
cannot use 16-bit registers in 32-bit mode.
As for myself, I can't get particularly excited about either side of
the discussion. Since there is such a difference of opinion on what
assembly language syntax should look like, all I expect of the NASM
disassembler is that it generate code which NASM will accept. If you
can show a test case in which this is not true, then I will be
motivated to do something about it.
--
Chuck
http://www.pacificsites.com/~ccrayne/charles.html
.
- References:
- NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Prev by Date: Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Next by Date: Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Previous by thread: Re: Intel illogical syntax...
- Next by thread: Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|